Can FIR be quashed in part based on compromise with only some accused? Supreme Court to examine

The Supreme Court will examine whether a criminal case can be partly quashed on the basis of a compromise between the complainant and some of the accused [Puneet Kumar @ Punit Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others]..A Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti on December 18 issued notice on a plea challenging a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court holding that courts cannot accept piecemeal compromises to save some of the accused in criminal cases.The top court was informed that several High Courts have taken contrary positions on the said issue."On the legal aspect, the counsel draws the attention of the Court to the chart at “Page-D” to point out that different High Courts had taken contrary positions on the issue as to whether on the face of compromise with one or few of the accused in the case, the case can be part quashed by the Court," the Bench noted..Meanwhile, the top court issued notice on the plea filed by the accused, who was roped in a criminal case on the basis of the statement made by a co-accused.It also granted him interim relief. "In the meantime, the trial may continue but not qua the petitioner," the Court ordered..Earlier, the High Court had in a batch of petitions ruled that a piecemeal settlement between the complainant or victim and some of the accused would be in conflict with the mandate of Section 223 (what persons may be charged jointly) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which now stands substituted by Section 246 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)..A division bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepti Sharma in the ruling dated November 12 highlighted various conflicting situations that may arise during trial after the acceptance of piecemeal settlements. The Court said that the aggrieved party itself may become disempowered when confronted with the order of partial compounding of offences.In case the complainant or victim during trial refuses to acknowledge the signing of the settlement, the order of composition may become vitiated, the High Court further observed..It also said that those accused with whom compromise was not made, may argue that the remaining trial was only a measure of wreaking vendetta against them. The Court also flagged that if such compromise is made with the main accused, the public prosecutor may become disabled to prove the joint criminal liability in the case.“The casualty would be the criminal administration system, besides the casualty thereofs, thus would be the victim/complainant,” the High Court opined..Advocates Aman Bansal, Madiya Mushtaq and Pranjal Kishore, appeared for the appellant..[Read Order]